Something John Isner's mom said the other day made me think of this thread. She said there were a lot of juniors who went pro while John went to college. Now he's top 10 or close to it and none of them made it.

With the game becoming so physical and guys doing better later in life, it's better to get your degree and compete straight after.

I guarantee Kosakowski will struggle in the lower levels until he can't afford to tour anymore (since it costs $140K on average to tour). He could go back to school later in life, but of course it won't be paid for.

Something John Isner's mom said the other day made me think of this thread. She said there were a lot of juniors who went pro while John went to college. Now he's top 10 or close to it and none of them made it.

With the game becoming so physical and guys doing better later in life, it's better to get your degree and compete straight after.

I guarantee Kosakowski will struggle in the lower levels until he can't afford to tour anymore (since it costs $140K on average to tour). He could go back to school later in life, but of course it won't be paid for.

Kind of a sad story.

Click to expand...

I think the $140K (and similar) estimates that have been given in these discussions are wildly exaggerated. They assume things like traveling with a coach for half the weeks in the year or whatever, and staying in hotel rooms week after week. The truth is that a lot of players only get some coaching on their weeks back home in between Futures tournaments, and they often stay with a local family who belongs to the club that is hosting the Futures.

That does not make it easy to make a good living at tennis, but it greatly reduces the number of people who are supposedly losing their shirts while playing tennis.

Something John Isner's mom said the other day made me think of this thread. She said there were a lot of juniors who went pro while John went to college. Now he's top 10 or close to it and none of them made it.

With the game becoming so physical and guys doing better later in life, it's better to get your degree and compete straight after.

I guarantee Kosakowski will struggle in the lower levels until he can't afford to tour anymore (since it costs $140K on average to tour). He could go back to school later in life, but of course it won't be paid for.

I think the $140K (and similar) estimates that have been given in these discussions are wildly exaggerated. They assume things like traveling with a coach for half the weeks in the year or whatever, and staying in hotel rooms week after week. The truth is that a lot of players only get some coaching on their weeks back home in between Futures tournaments, and they often stay with a local family who belongs to the club that is hosting the Futures.

That does not make it easy to make a good living at tennis, but it greatly reduces the number of people who are supposedly losing their shirts while playing tennis.

Click to expand...

It's actually $153k, but it's an average. Certainly there are folks that are below that and those that are above. I don't think Kosakowski and Djokovic have the same costs.

But, if this kid is serious about making it he will need more than occasional coaching. Very few pros make it from the Challengers to full time ATP without a traveling coach.

Says who? In case you did not get my point: I am disputing the numbers that have been posted. The numbers are not based on examining the tax returns of players ranked between 100 and 300 and averaging their reported business expenses. The numbers are based on someone sitting around with a calculator, saying, "Let's see. Suppose you spend X weeks at tournaments and have to pay $Y per night for a hotel, and that goes on all week. Then you make so many plane flights, and you get so many hours of coaching, ... etc."

I don't buy it. The numbers seem like they were deliberately invented to maximize the total, either to scare people into going to college instead of turning pro, or to complain about what tennis pros earn as net income after expenses compared to other athletes, or for whatever reason.

If you're only at the future level, the best you could possibly do each week is pull in $2000-$3000 (and that's if you won singles and doubles each week). You've definitely got to be at challenger level to even consider breaking even or making a little money, if you ask me.

It's rough out there. Surprises me that some people sit out there and toil away as long as they do.

If you're only at the future level, the best you could possibly do each week is pull in $2000-$3000 (and that's if you won singles and doubles each week). You've definitely got to be at challenger level to even consider breaking even or making a little money, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Agreed. You certainly don't make a living if you never get to the Challenger level. Futures forever just won't cut it.

It's rough out there. Surprises me that some people sit out there and toil away as long as they do.

Click to expand...

Maybe they toil away for as long as they do because it does not actually cost them $140,000 to $150,000 a year. That's my point. If they were spending that amount, do you think there could possibly be that many? Yet, there are hundreds of players who spend all year at the Futures level. The idea that they all have rich parents who pay more than $100,000 to subsidize the kid's dream is ridiculous.

I have no idea how hard it really is out there, but it really amazes me how dedicated and committed some of these guys are to following their dream. I enjoy watching the Futures and Challenger circuits just as much as the ATP tour. And this site is one of my favorite tennis sites.

Agreed. You certainly don't make a living if you never get to the Challenger level. Futures forever just won't cut it.

Maybe they toil away for as long as they do because it does not actually cost them $140,000 to $150,000 a year. That's my point. If they were spending that amount, do you think there could possibly be that many? Yet, there are hundreds of players who spend all year at the Futures level. The idea that they all have rich parents who pay more than $100,000 to subsidize the kid's dream is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Agree. I don't think it's that much either. I just don't see how it's feasible at any amount, really. I guess you keep going with the hope that you can move on to that next level.

Let's just say conservative estimates for a tourney:
$200 for a week at some cheap motel
$100 for food
$100 Gas to get to tournament (this is assuming you drive to anywhere within 4 hours or so, and could be variable.)
$80 Stringing fees (say you have 4 rackets and somehow only get them strung one time for the whole week, or string your own, etc.)

Even at that, which has got to be leaving out something (coaching, long distance travel expenses, etc), you're looking at having to make the semi's (at the lowest Futures level) every week just to break even.

It's not 100k, but SOMEONE is subsidizing these guys. They have to be.

I got to talking to a former USC player at a 25k and she got a sizeable discount on clothing, 4 racquets a year, and several reels of string. Travel was paid by her parents and she did the host family thing around the country. She worked at her coach's club when she was at home training so they had something worked out, but I didn't get into details. This girl was ranked around 690 at the time I met her.

So, she did have annual costs in the ballpark of 154k, but she figured out ways to subsidize them. Out of pocket might have been around 30 for her folks.

Here is a modest proposal for the USTA, rather than spending $500,000,000 on a stadium renovation:

1) Sponsor more Futures tourneys in the USA. Increase the subsidy (currently) 50% of the prize money) to 100% to lure more clubs into sponsoring. The clubs still have to pay officials and other expenses, so it takes a lot to attract more clubs. A local corporation could pay for the officials in return for placard advertising, draw sheet advertising, etc., which often happens. You could come up with a 40 week Futures schedule each year, with some geographic grouping so that travel is lessened from one week to the next.

2) Hire a fitness trainer and a physical therapist, and have them attend the 40 Futures events. Their services are free to USA players at the events. The USTA has to pay travel expenses for these two employees, of course.

Total expense: About $1,000,000 a year for the men and the same for the women. With players getting some small sponsorships for rackets and string, it would become possible for players to attend 20-30 Futures tourneys a year, staying with local families from the clubs, without spending a fortune.

Sounds like a good investment in American tennis to me, unlike the stadium renovation, which means ABSOLUTELY ZERO to me as an American tennis fan.

Maybe they toil away for as long as they do because it does not actually cost them $140,000 to $150,000 a year. That's my point. If they were spending that amount, do you think there could possibly be that many? Yet, there are hundreds of players who spend all year at the Futures level. The idea that they all have rich parents who pay more than $100,000 to subsidize the kid's dream is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many of them do pay $100k+ for their kid to chase a dream. Wealthy parent + child dream = money pit

I did meet another girl from Venezuela, Gabby Paz. I asked how she manages on the women's pro circuit. Her answer was in the ballpark of "I'm the top player from Venezuela so I just ask for help and they (govt/federation) help me.". She was ranked around 200 then.

Here is a modest proposal for the USTA, rather than spending $500,000,000 on a stadium renovation:

1) Sponsor more Futures tourneys in the USA. Increase the subsidy (currently) 50% of the prize money) to 100% to lure more clubs into sponsoring. The clubs still have to pay officials and other expenses, so it takes a lot to attract more clubs. A local corporation could pay for the officials in return for placard advertising, draw sheet advertising, etc., which often happens. You could come up with a 40 week Futures schedule each year, with some geographic grouping so that travel is lessened from one week to the next.

2) Hire a fitness trainer and a physical therapist, and have them attend the 40 Futures events. Their services are free to USA players at the events. The USTA has to pay travel expenses for these two employees, of course.

Total expense: About $1,000,000 a year for the men and the same for the women. With players getting some small sponsorships for rackets and string, it would become possible for players to attend 20-30 Futures tourneys a year, staying with local families from the clubs, without spending a fortune.

Sounds like a good investment in American tennis to me, unlike the stadium renovation, which means ABSOLUTELY ZERO to me as an American tennis fan.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is really solid. Agree with letting local companies sponsor as well if possible.

Wow, this is really solid. Agree with letting local companies sponsor as well if possible.

Click to expand...

Local companies already do sponsor. The problem is getting enough sponsorship. If you put on a $10,000 prize money Futures event, your club will spend another $10,000 on officials and so on. The USTA subsidizes half the prize money, i.e. $5,000. So, I am just guessing that if the USTA doubled the subsidy there would still be plenty of need for a local sponsor or two, but the sponsorship would not be as expensive and it would be more feasible to talk a sponsor into the smaller amount to cover officials and other expenses while still getting the tournament named after them, etc.

Local companies already do sponsor. The problem is getting enough sponsorship. If you put on a $10,000 prize money Futures event, your club will spend another $10,000 on officials and so on. The USTA subsidizes half the prize money, i.e. $5,000. So, I am just guessing that if the USTA doubled the subsidy there would still be plenty of need for a local sponsor or two, but the sponsorship would not be as expensive and it would be more feasible to talk a sponsor into the smaller amount to cover officials and other expenses while still getting the tournament named after them, etc.

Click to expand...

I like your proposal. The USTA really should think about doing something along this line of thought.

Side note: 2) Hire a fitness trainer and a physical therapist, and have them attend the 40 Futures events. Their services are free to USA players at the events. The USTA has to pay travel expenses for these two employees, of course.

^^^^^^According to a source who has worked in this capacity on the tour tells me when the other federations have coaches fitness trainer and a physical therapist at any pro tournament, any player from that country can use them while there. This source tells me that when the USTA has those resources at tournaments only the selected USTA program players can use them.

don't most tournaments have host families so a large majority of the players stay with local families and I would assume many players room together at a hotel so $200 a week per player would not be bad. Look at the extended stay hotels that charge around $190 a week.

don't most tournaments have host families so a large majority of the players stay with local families and I would assume many players room together at a hotel so $200 a week per player would not be bad. Look at the extended stay hotels that charge around $190 a week.

Click to expand...

Players stay with local families at the Charlottesville Challenger. I think this is common, and your point about players sharing rooms is a good one as well.

Point is, he's toiling at the lower levels, whereas he could have gone pro in a couple more years more mature and ready for the physicality of today's game.
No reason to go pro early anymore unless you're already an undisputed top 10 talent.

Point is, he's toiling at the lower levels, whereas he could have gone pro in a couple more years more mature and ready for the physicality of today's game.
No reason to go pro early anymore unless you're already an undisputed top 10 talent.

Point is, he's toiling at the lower levels, whereas he could have gone pro in a couple more years more mature and ready for the physicality of today's game.
No reason to go pro early anymore unless you're already an undisputed top 10 talent.

Click to expand...

Why stay in college when a player has the goods and has little intention of using college for the purpose of getting a degree? Everyone on this board claims every junior should try to play alittle college before they go pro. That is exactly what he did and everyone criticizes him for leaving in one year. Well, between him and all his contemporaries (ie: sock, kudla), he is the only one who did go to college and now he is 1 year out and already doing just as well as them and he will outdo both soon enough.

Why stay in college when a player has the goods and has little intention of using college for the purpose of getting a degree? Everyone on this board claims every junior should try to play alittle college before they go pro. That is exactly what he did and everyone criticizes him for leaving in one year. Well, between him and all his contemporaries (ie: sock, kudla), he is the only one who did go to college and now he is 1 year out and already doing just as well as them and he will outdo both soon enough.

Click to expand...

He's 20 years old and ranked 345. Where do you think the guys who are now in the top 15 or 20 were ranked when they were 20? It wasn't 345, I can tell you that much. Sure, he could make it. But it's not like he's burning up the lower levels. If his ceiling is the in the 50-100 range (just guessing based on results), then would playing 3 more years of college have really hurt? I don't know the answer, but you have to wonder.

He's 20 years old and ranked 345. Where do you think the guys who are now in the top 15 or 20 were ranked when they were 20? It wasn't 345, I can tell you that much. Sure, he could make it. But it's not like he's burning up the lower levels. If his ceiling is the in the 50-100 range (just guessing based on results), then would playing 3 more years of college have really hurt? I don't know the answer, but you have to wonder.

Click to expand...

This is the problem for those who are not there. If you go into the pro game thinking my ceiling is 50-100 and turning pro at 19 or 21 does not matter, it's not going to work for you. Guessing where a players top ranking will be is in the end just a guess. More players don't make it then make it. It's easy to say a kid taking a run at pro game won't make. But the ones that do make it all have one thing in common. They went into it with the attitude that if they worked hard, avoided injury they have a chance. Starting younger and trading full time with other pros give them the best chance.

Give the kid a chance. If this is the kids dream my hats off to him for making a run at it. I'm not going to pretend I know what his plan and back up plans for life are. But I will do this and give he and his family the benefit if the doubt and believe they know more than us backseat drivers here do.

Give the kid a chance. If this is the kids dream my hats off to him for making a run at it. I'm not going to pretend I know what his plan and back up plans for life are. But I will do this and give he and his family the benefit if the doubt and believe they know more than us backseat drivers here do.

Click to expand...

Speaking of back-up plans, he could live at home and pay in-state tuition at UCLA and finish a degree without too much expense. A partial scholarship to UCLA is not a big deal to a resident of the Los Angeles area. People talk as if he gave up the sun, the moon, and the stars to play Futures.

Speaking of back-up plans, he could live at home and pay in-state tuition at UCLA and finish a degree without too much expense. A partial scholarship to UCLA is not a big deal to a resident of the Los Angeles area. People talk as if he gave up the sun, the moon, and the stars to play Futures.

Click to expand...

exactly ,if a player have any thoughts of becoming a pro,they need to get their feet wet at a young age.. the tour is about adjusting to all kinds of adversities and learning how to win .. learning to win doesn't take a season,it takes some time to get used to their competition and at that big stage ..

Speaking of back-up plans, he could live at home and pay in-state tuition at UCLA and finish a degree without too much expense. A partial scholarship to UCLA is not a big deal to a resident of the Los Angeles area. People talk as if he gave up the sun, the moon, and the stars to play Futures.

Click to expand...

And many classes can be taken on line. Zvonoreva and Jankovic earned their college degrees while playing on the tour.

Thing is, I will believe someone like John Isners mom who talked about all those other kids who went pro and are off the tour with no degree, no more scholarship money. Can you live at home and finish your degree in your late 20's? Sure, but how many do?
I get that the dream of a pro career is seductive, but the evidence is clear that 99 percent of these kids don't make it.
And its not as if playing tennis at 22 after 4 years of college is going to set you back, is it?

Thing is, I will believe someone like John Isners mom who talked about all those other kids who went pro and are off the tour with no degree, no more scholarship money. Can you live at home and finish your degree in your late 20's? Sure, but how many do?
I get that the dream of a pro career is seductive, but the evidence is clear that 99 percent of these kids don't make it.
And its not as if playing tennis at 22 after 4 years of college is going to set you back, is it?

Click to expand...

What does living at home in ones late 20's have to do with anything. I believe your last question has been addressed and answered.

Pretending to know people we don't and pretending to know what's best for them is fun. Makes me want to see the government regulate more for us.

Thing is, I will believe someone like John Isners mom who talked about all those other kids who went pro and are off the tour with no degree, no more scholarship money. Can you live at home and finish your degree in your late 20's? Sure, but how many do?
I get that the dream of a pro career is seductive, but the evidence is clear that 99 percent of these kids don't make it.
And its not as if playing tennis at 22 after 4 years of college is going to set you back, is it?

Click to expand...

If getting a degree is not important for the kid, why is 4 years of college more helpful for his game? You ask how many go back to college in their late 20's, but how many pros actually intend to use their degrees for a normal desk job. I am not talking about people who graduate and play futures for 1 year "to try it out" and then go back to work. I am talking about top college players who state in their high school and college interviews that they intend to play professional tennis after college. Most American pros end up with a job within the tennis world anyways.

Thing is, I will believe someone like John Isners mom who talked about all those other kids who went pro and are off the tour with no degree, no more scholarship money. Can you live at home and finish your degree in your late 20's? Sure, but how many do?

Click to expand...

Well Michael Russell apparently recently got his BS from the University of Phoenix...

I don't think Kosakowski will be living in his parents' basement. Unless his arm falls off or something he should always be able to make a decent living from tennis in one form or another. So I don't blame him for putting college on hold.

Kosakowski hasn't had a bad year. He's beaten Zverev, Russell, Gil, Carsten Ball, Chiudinelli, not bad. He's got this going for him, he beats the people he should. He really usually loses to players in the top 300. Once he gets enough points for direct entry to challengers, he should be able to cut down on the qualifying matches.

I don't see why more pros don't do what Amer Delic did, play January through US Open and then go to school. Taking the time off is probably better for the body and the game in the long run. It doesn't appear to hurt basketball or baseball players.

I don't see why more pros don't do what Amer Delic did, play January through US Open and then go to school. Taking the time off is probably better for the body and the game in the long run. It doesn't appear to hurt basketball or baseball players.

There are other types of scholarships available to college students besides athletic ones. The average age of people attending the traditional four year university where I work (enrollment >15k) is 25.

I don't see why more pros don't do what Amer Delic did, play January through US Open and then go to school. Taking the time off is probably better for the body and the game in the long run. It doesn't appear to hurt basketball or baseball players.

Click to expand...

B/c it would hinder their progress?? Tennis isn't seasonal like those other sports, it's year round. If you're only playing 2/3 of the year, and all your peers are playing all year, you're missing out on money, points, experience. Especially if you're an up & coming player.

Now, if you're Fed/Nadal/Djokovic, you can take 4-5 weeks off at a time, then return. But, even with those guys, it's never as long a layoff as you're suggesting.

B/c it would hinder their progress?? Tennis isn't seasonal like those other sports, it's year round. If you're only playing 2/3 of the year, and all your peers are playing all year, you're missing out on money, points, experience. Especially if you're an up & coming player.

Now, if you're Fed/Nadal/Djokovic, you can take 4-5 weeks off at a time, then return. But, even with those guys, it's never as long a layoff as you're suggesting.

Click to expand...

January thru USO is more than 2/3 of the season. It's only a month and a half break at the end of the year. Most pros are done in November except those that make the Tour Finals. Everything important (majors, 1000s, and 500s) are done so it's just a few small tourneys to skip.

Everyone needs break time and whether you take 5 one week breaks or 1 five week break is an individual's decision. McEnroe said in his book that when it came to down time, he ate and drank and sat around doing nothing for weeks.

January thru USO is more than 2/3 of the season. It's only a month and a half break at the end of the year. Most pros are done in November except those that make the Tour Finals. Everything important (majors, 1000s, and 500s) are done so it's just a few small tourneys to skip.

Everyone needs break time and whether you take 5 one week breaks or 1 five week break is an individual's decision. McEnroe said in his book that when it came to down time, he ate and drank and sat around doing nothing for weeks.

Click to expand...

That was a very, very different era. Totally not comparable. Growing up McEnroe only played 3-4 times a week.